A second appeal left unprosecuted despite service of notice on the appellants can be dismissed for non-prosecution; the High Court reiterates established procedure without addressing questions of law on merits. The decision affirms current judicial practice and holds binding value within jurisdiction but does not set new legal precedent.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1073/2022 of M/S GURU NANAK FILING STATION RAIKOT AND ANR Vs KANCHAN CHAUDHARI NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRS |
| CNR | PHHC010657612020 |
| Date of Registration | 16-05-2022 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction; does not constitute ratio on substantive law. |
| Type of Law | Civil procedure (regular second appeal, non-prosecution) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Has persuasive value for other High Courts facing similar facts, though no substantive principle laid down |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- This decision reaffirms that an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution where appellants fail to appear after notice is duly served.
- No merits of the appeal or legal questions were considered; lawyers should ensure proactive representation after notice to avoid automatic dismissal.
- Highlights the consequence of non-appearance even at the preliminary hearing stage in appellate matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the office report showing that notice of the hearing had duly been served on the appellants.
- Despite multiple opportunities, including calling out the matter twice, no representation was made for the appellants.
- The order records the Court’s satisfaction that the appellants had no intention of pursuing the appeal.
- Citing established procedural practice, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
- Pending applications were also disposed of as a consequence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
None (No one appeared for the appellants despite service and calls).
Respondent
Not recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The appeal pertained to a regular second appeal filed in 2022. After service of notices on the appellants, no one appeared on their behalf despite the matter being repeatedly called. The counsel previously pleaded no instructions, and appellants did not respond to notices. Accordingly, the Court inferred lack of intent to pursue the matter and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- No interpretation of statutory provisions was undertaken; the decision was based on procedural practice regarding dismissal for non-prosecution at the appellate stage.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded. Standard procedure followed regarding dismissal for non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural practice on non-prosecution affirmed.